The fact that African farmers happen to be black and we happen to be mainly white is coincidental and if you think it's some ulterior motive on my behalf to blame whites then I think you're slightly paranoid or something.

Anyway, I believe as humans we have an obligation to at least help these people to some degree. Yea it might be their fault that their all dying but the least you can do is care a bit. Life isn't all about greed and keeping what's yours.

The fact that African farmers happen to be black and we happen to be mainly white is coincidental and if you think it's some ulterior motive on my behalf to blame whites then I think you're slightly paranoid or something.

Anyway, I believe as humans we have an obligation to at least help these people to some degree. Yea it might be their fault that their all dying but the least you can do is care a bit. Life isn't all about greed and keeping what's yours.

I don't really dispute what you say here. I don't have anything against helping those in need, whoever or wherever they may be. But I think it's a fair question to ask how far we should go and where the line should be drawn. If we go too far, then we will eventually lose the capability to help others, including ourselves. As a consequence, all will suffer, especially those who have grown dependent upon outside help.

If anything, by allowing the "best and the brightest" from those countries (such as they are) to immigrate to the West, we are actually hurting the third world by causing a brain drain. These people should be working to improve their own countries, rather than deserting their people for reasons of selfish greed. The only thing immigration does is act as a safety valve for these tyrannical third-world dictatorships, as a way of maintaining the globalist status quo.

So, if you really want to help these people, then you should support a moratorium on immigration from third world countries.

I don't really dispute what you say here. I don't have anything against helping those in need, whoever or wherever they may be. But I think it's a fair question to ask how far we should go and where the line should be drawn. If we go too far, then we will eventually lose the capability to help others, including ourselves. As a consequence, all will suffer, especially those who have grown dependent upon outside help.

If anything, by allowing the "best and the brightest" from those countries (such as they are) to immigrate to the West, we are actually hurting the third world by causing a brain drain. These people should be working to improve their own countries, rather than deserting their people for reasons of selfish greed. The only thing immigration does is act as a safety valve for these tyrannical third-world dictatorships, as a way of maintaining the globalist status quo.

So, if you really want to help these people, then you should support a moratorium on immigration from third world countries.

The Trivial one is a great believer in forced philanthropy. He is utterly convinced that he, and people like him, have the moral and spiritual authority to pick your pocket to support whatever cause they support this week, month, year, etc. He believes he has a special insight into what is wrong with the world and what needs to be done. And for some reason, he believes you need to send your charity to a continent you will probably never go to, rather than to someone that lives in the same city as you do.

I’ve always found socialist’s self-righteousness to be both amusing and contemptible. They never understand the wisdom of the statement that “Charity begins at home.” There are White people in my town that live in poverty. It is much more logical for me to help them than it is to send that same money to some charity organization that has to skim some just for their own overhead. I will never understand why someone would prefer to send money for a picture of little “Mokwanza-kenta” and a form letter that tells them how much their $1.48 does for the people of “Moteasuh” when they could just go to their neighborhood shelter and actually give someone that $1.48. I guess long distance “philanthropy” is more aseptic than actually having to associate with disadvantaged people.

The fact that African farmers happen to be black and we happen to be mainly white is coincidental and if you think it's some ulterior motive on my behalf to blame whites then I think you're slightly paranoid or something.

Anyway, I believe as humans we have an obligation to at least help these people to some degree. Yea it might be their fault that their all dying but the least you can do is care a bit. Life isn't all about greed and keeping what's yours.

Then you tell me, why is Africa in such a bad state, and what can be done to fix its troubles?

The Trivial one is a great believer in forced philanthropy. He is utterly convinced that he, and people like him, have the moral and spiritual authority to pick your pocket to support whatever cause they support this week, month, year, etc. He believes he has a special insight into what is wrong with the world and what needs to be done. And for some reason, he believes you need to send your charity to a continent you will probably never go to, rather than to someone that lives in the same city as you do.

Yes and you think you are super cool cos you know a lot about ancient egypt. Can I be you?

Oh and I'm fully aware of the problems facing our own society, coming from a working class background myself I know what it's like not having a silver spoon in my mouth. We have in the west however something called the welfare state. So even if you are in the depths of despair you can get help. And this isn't about prefering the poor Africans over your own kin, the fact that 10% of America own 90% of it's wealth says more about the greed of your own people than the greed of someone who wants to help third world people.

SDY, yes maybe that should be controlled, I agree it's pointless taking the best of their continent, it's counter-productive. Hell the Germans would probably have been the first to send a man into space if you hadn't stole their scientests

I'm not for opening the floodgates to everyone and everything, multiculturalism is in it's infancy, America was a war zone when all the white immigrants from Europe started coming in. They found their place alright, and you can use the stereotype of the lazy black or lazy Mexican but the truth is most of these people in America work and get on with the population generally. Lets see how it pans out eh?

Yes and you think you are super cool cos you know a lot about ancient egypt. Can I be you?

Well, maybe, if you eat all your Wheaties. Who knows?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trivialator

Oh and I'm fully aware of the problems facing our own society, coming from a working class background myself I know what it's like not having a silver spoon in my mouth. We have in the west however something called the welfare state. So even if you are in the depths of despair you can get help. And this isn't about prefering the poor Africans over your own kin, the fact that 10% of America own 90% of it's wealth says more about the greed of your own people than the greed of someone who wants to help third world people.

And yet, those 10% (I'm sure it's at lot less than that) are the ones that are leading the drive to bail out Africa. Don't you get suspicious when someone like Tony Blair makes this a major part of his party's platform? I'm sure you don't, but you really should feel like a dupe. You are being manipulated to believe what you do. But then, you're just 19. You'll learn to reason more effectively as you grow older.

And yet, those 10% (I'm sure it's at lot less than that) are the ones that are leading the drive to bail out Africa. Don't you get suspicious when someone like Tony Blair makes this a major part of his party's platform? I'm sure you don't, but you really should feel like a dupe. You are being manipulated to believe what you do. But then, you're just 19. You'll learn to reason more effectively as you grow older.

I think he makes it a major part of his speech so he can come across as a good leader again and score some points against the Conservatives.

What's your opinion on why they do this? You actually haven't said why.

I think he makes it a major part of his speech so he can come across as a good leader again and score some points against the Conservatives.

What's your opinion on why they do this? You actually haven't said why.

I'll be 20 in less than a year, that makes me a big boy

And how would that make him come across as a good leader by channeling money to Africa that should go to his own countrymen? You don't see any contradiction there?

If you'll be 20 soon, you should realize by now that governments are controlled, not by the voting public, but by the almighty dollar, or pound. They follow the golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. Now, you need to find out who has the gold. And I assure you, it's not Tony Blair.